COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT WORKING PARTY
Minutes of a meeting of the Council Tax Support Working Party held on 07 August
2012 in the Committee Room, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Members Present:
Working Party:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V Gay, Mr G Jones, Mr W Northam,
and Mr R Oliver.
Officers in
Attendance:
The Head of Finance, the Revenues and Benefits Services
Manager, the Procurement Officer, the Benefits Manager and the
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
1
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
Mr W J Northam was elected Chairman.
2
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None.
3
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
4
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
5
INTRODUCTIONS
David Airey from ACS Ltd was attending the meeting to provide an overview of the
localisation of council tax support and respond to any questions from Members.
6
TERMS OF REFERENCE
On 16th July 2012 Cabinet approved the establishment of a politically balanced
working group to consider and make recommendations for a draft council tax support
scheme and consultation process to the Chief Financial Officer, Portfolio Holder and
Leader of the Council.
Members considered the draft terms of reference:
Purpose
The Council has established a working group to consider;Options for a Council Tax Support Scheme
A Consultation Process taking into account parties indirectly and directly affected by
the proposals.
Council Tax Support Working Party
07 August 2012
Remit
Propose a scheme that is cost neutral to the local authority taking into account the
government’s indicative grant reduction and estimated growth for 2013/14
Propose a scheme that embodies the requirements as stated in the Local
Government Finance Bill
• the reductions are to apply to council tax payable
• who is entitled to a reduction, which may be determined by reference to their
income, capital (or both), the number of dependants or whether the person has
made an application
• the procedure for applying
• the procedure for making an appeal
• the procedure by which a person can apply for a discretionary reduction
• that for each financial year, each billing authority must consider whether to
revise its scheme or to replace it with another scheme
• that in exercising any function relating to schemes, a billing authority must have
regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
• the Government has set rules to protect pensioners on low incomes
• no rules have been prescribed to protect other vulnerable groups but local
schemes should have regard to them.
A set of principles needs to be agreed in order to develop the local scheme. The
following outlines some of the principles to be considered:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Being means tested with most income taken into account and most outgoings
not taken into account
Provide support for those who work so that they are better off than if they had
relied on public funds
Protect those of pension age and protect if agreed, other residents who we
consider could not be expected to work
Be seen to be a fair and reasonable use of public funds
Feature rules that are similar to those for other state benefits, to make the
scheme easier to understand and administer.
Be operationally efficient and within budget.
Propose the rules and procedures to administer the scheme to be developed e.g.
how to make a claim to Council Tax support, awards, changes to entitlement,
overpayments.
Propose whether a Discretionary Payment Scheme/Hardship scheme should be
established for council tax support. Propose a level of funding and policies would
need to be developed.
Propose a consultation model. This should include who the consultees are and the
mechanism for consultation as appropriate to each group of consultees.
The working Group will prepare a report of its conclusions for the Leader of the
Council, Portfolio Holder and Chief Finance Officer
Membership
Cllr. Virginia Gay, Cllr. Wyndham Northam Cllr. Annie Claussen-Reynolds Cllr.
Rhodri Oliver and Cllr. Graham Jones
Council Tax Support Working Party
07 August 2012
Timescales
The working Group will report its conclusions and recommendations to those with
delegated authority by the 27th August 2012.
The Chairman asked whether the Working Party would see the report before it was
finalised. The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager said that the report would be
produced as a result of the meetings of the Working Party and it would be shared
with the members of the group before it was circulated to those with delegated
authority.
AGREED
To approve the terms of reference.
7
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
The Head of Finance introduced this item. She explained that there would be
headline funding reductions of 10% for the Council Tax Benefit scheme from 2013/14
at the same time as localising the scheme. Future support for council tax would be
offered as reductions within the council tax system, with funding being made
available to billing and major precepting authorities via grants. Based on the
provisional funding announcements for the Council, the reduction in funding would
amount to 11.6% (before allowing for any growth in the demand on the scheme).
To provide a cost-neutral scheme, and to allow for growth of 2.7% based on the
previous financial years, the total current scheme would cost £8.42m, requiring a
scheme savings target of £1.18m. By allowing for growth of 2.7%, it was possible that
a hardship scheme could be set up to help those with the most need.
Members discussed the financial overview:
1. Mr R Oliver asked whether it would be possible to pro-rata the council tax grant
per resident. The Head of Financial Services responded that this was effectively
what had been done but rather than per head of population, a calculation had
been made on the share of the council tax bill.
2. Mr G Jones was concerned that an additional burden would fall on the poorest
residents of the district. The Revenues and Benefits Manager said that the
Council was not willing to increase council tax to subsidise the discount.
3. Ms V Gay sought clarification on the figure allowed for growth. The Revenues
and Benefits Manager explained that this referred to growth in demand for council
tax discount. The amount of 2.7% was estimated and could be too high but it was
important that it did not fall short. In response to a further question as to whether
external support for the scheme could increase in the future, the revenues and
Benefits Manager said that it would not.
4. The Chairman asked whether the calculation for growth was based on the
previous 3 years. The Head of Financial Services confirmed that it was. In
response to a further question as to the demographic make-up of the growth, the
Revenues and Benefits Manager said that it was a mixture across all age ranges.
Mr D Airey added that there was a fluctuating rise and fall in new claimants.
5. Mr G Jones asked how the level of pensioners within the district compared with
other local authorities. The Revenues and Benefits Manager confirmed that North
Norfolk had the highest level across the region.
Council Tax Support Working Party
07 August 2012
6. Mr R Oliver proposed that the Working Party contact the County Council and
request that they calculate the division of grants for council tax funding pro-rata
on the working head of population to ensure that the district council received a
larger share to compensate for the high number of pensioners. Members agreed
that this was a good idea.
AGREED
To request that Norfolk County Council calculate the division of grants for council tax
funding pro-rata on the working head of population.
8
PRINCIPLES OF THE SCHEME
Mr D Airey of ACS Ltd introduced this item. He explained that his consultancy worked
closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the
case had been made early on for adjustments to be made for local authorities with
high pensioner numbers but that it was unlikely that any changes would be
introduced.
Mr D Airey gave a presentation on the principles of the scheme (Minutes Appendix A)
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Mr G Jones asked for further information on how pensioners would be affected by
the introduction of universal credit. Mr D Airey said that only working age people
were eligible so pensioners would not be affected.
2. The issue of the possibility of challenge to the council tax support scheme by
vulnerable groups was raised. There was a concern that if they weren’t protected
under the scheme that the Council could be subject to future legal challenge. Mr
D Airey confirmed that this was a possibility but that the County Council would
lose the most as they had the biggest share of the funding. He said that there
was a tentative agreement with the County Council that they would provide
assistance if there was a significant challenge.
3. Mr G Jones asked for further information about the term ‘incentivise work’. Mr D
Airey said that the Council already did this by not including tax credits and child
benefit as income.
4. Mr R Oliver asked whether it was possible to differentiate residents on how long
they had lived in the district within the Council’s scheme. Mr D Airey responded
that this was a possibility but it could only be applied to working age residents. He
added that the practicalities of administering such a scheme would be very
difficult. It was important that the scheme should be simple to administrate or
there would need to be an increase in staff numbers.
5. Ms V Gay asked whether there was a requirement to review the scheme each
year. Mr D Airey said there was not but that if the scheme was changed then it
would need to be reviewed and each time it was reviewed then the public would
need to be consulted. He added that the Council should be prepared to have a
different scheme each year for the next few years whilst it bedded in.
6. Mr G Jones was concerned about the impact on the council’s debt collection
rates and asked whether the DCLG had considered this. Mr D Airey said that they
were aware of the possible effect on debt collection but no additional help or
funding had been set aside to deal with this.
7. Clarification was sought on the number of authorities that provided additional
funding to their schemes to ensure that provision to claimants stayed at the
current level. Mr D Airey said that out of the 55 authorities that he had worked
Council Tax Support Working Party
07 August 2012
with only 6 had taken this option and they tended to be metropolitan authorities
that had full control over their budgets.
8. Mr R Oliver asked whether the scheme could be changed in response to the
public consultation. Mr D Airey said that it was important to be mindful of the
responses and alter the scheme if necessary.
9. Mr G Jones was concerned that the Council might struggle to cope with the tight
deadlines imposed by the scheme, given the recent software issues caused by
the partnership with Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. The
Revenues and Benefits Manager said that she didn’t know how long it would take
to resolve the problems. She acknowledged that it was having an impact on
performance and they were currently 6-8 weeks behind schedule and this was
having an impact on staff morale. It was possible that these issues could impact
on the delivery of the council tax support scheme as it was a large project that
was happening at the same time as the Council was moving forward with the
partnership. The Benefits Manager added that there would be a further impact on
other service areas at the Council such as housing, council tax, benefits and
customer services. The Working Party needed to give a clear steer as to which
direction they intended to go in so that additional resources could be put in place.
10. In response to a question from Mr R Oliver regarding the figures relating to
individual parishes, the Revenues and Benefits Manager said that the figures
were produced from a modelling tool and based at data available at the time. She
would request an update.
9
TIMETABLE
The Revenues and Benefits Manager referred the Working Party to the Cabinet
report of 16th July which outlined the timetable for selecting then implementing a local
council tax support scheme.
Mr R Oliver asked whether the group needed to decide on a preferred model at the
current meeting. The Revenues and Benefits Manager responded that they would
like Members to choose one or two models that could be worked on and then brought
back to the next meeting for consideration.
Mr K Johnson felt it was important that other Members were involved in the process.
The Revenues and Benefits Manager said that this could be discussed further at the
next meeting. She suggested that a report could be produced and circulated to all
Members for discussion.
10
MODELLING OPTIONS
The Revenues and Benefits Manager reminded Members that it was important to
keep the model as simple as possible whilst retaining some existing protections for
vulnerable groups. A table with 13 options was presented to the Working Party,
highlighting the factors that were being applied to each one. Four preferred options
were outlined in detail. The Revenues and Benefits Manager explained that Option
12 was favoured by officers as it was simple to administer and provided the required
level of savings, whilst retaining protection for vulnerable groups.
Members discussed the modelling options:
1. Mr G Jones sought confirmation that the capital limit would be reduced from
£16000 to £6000 in all of the proposed options. The Benefits Manager said that
this was the case and explained that a taper was currently used.
Council Tax Support Working Party
07 August 2012
2. Mr K Johnson queried the proposal to exclude maintenance payments as income
from some of the options. Mr D Airey explained that the inclusion of maintenance
payments could make administration of the scheme difficult. They had been
included previously but not for the last two years so the data was no longer
accurate. If maintenance payments were particularly high it was likely that they
would be picked up via the limit on capital.
3. Mr R Oliver proposed that option 12 was looked at in more detail. The Benefits
Manager said that this option kept the protection for vulnerable groups that
currently existed. The Revenues and Benefits Manager added that this model
was similar to the one favoured by Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
which would make it easier to administrate.
4. Ms V Gay said that she could see the advantages of option 12 but she had
doubts about the underlying assumption that the scheme should be cost neutral,
particularly during the first year. Mr W Northam responded that it was possible to
alter the scheme if it didn’t work as well as anticipated. Mr D Airey added that if
option 12 was chosen and the County Council were able to make more money
available in the future, then the threshold for maximum benefit could be raised to
80% or above.
5. Mr R Oliver said that it was important to try and get cross-party support for the
scheme. Mr G Jones responded that he believed there were additional sources of
funding and these should be considered. He did not provide any further
information regarding possible sources of revenue.
6. Ms V Gay commented that it would be helpful to see some real-life examples
using Option 12.
It was proposed by Mr R Oliver, seconded by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and
RESOLVED to
Approve Option 12 as the preferred modelling option.
Ms V Gay and Mr G Jones abstained.
11
CONSULTATION
The Revenues and Benefits Manager advised the Working Party that they would
need to consider who should be consulted on the proposals for a council tax support
scheme and how this should be done.
1. Mr R Oliver suggested that the Working Party could consider examples used by
other local authorities. Mr D Airey confirmed that he would provide the group with
information and examples.
2. The Benefits Manager advised that there would need to be additional support
from within the Council to support the consultation process. Customer services
and the web team would have to be involved from the early stages. Mr D Airey
added that all those residents directly affected by the proposals would need to be
consulted as would relevant interest groups. The Benefits Manager said that
those currently in receipt of council tax benefit would be provided with scenarios
to indicate how they may be affected by the proposals.
3. The Revenues and Benefits Manager was not sure whether it would be
necessary to conduct a telephone survey. Mr D Airey said that other local
authorities had conducted a brief survey when customers contacted them with a
general enquiry.
Council Tax Support Working Party
07 August 2012
4. The Revenues and Benefits Manager informed the Working Party that they would
work closely with other local authorities across the region. It was anticipated that
a meeting would be hosted in Norwich to share ideas and resources.
12
EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
The Revenues and Benefits Manager informed the Working Party that Norfolk County
Council and Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council had agreed to provide
support for the equality and diversity impact assessment on the final scheme.
The Chairman thanked everyone for their input. He said that Members were aware of
the impact of the proposed changes on staff and would consider this as the process
was taken forward.
The Meeting closed at 12.24 pm.
Chairman
Council Tax Support Working Party
07 August 2012